Insight into Israeli/Jewish mindset?

[JohnnyTowers]

Jews emigrated into europe from the levant thousands of years ago. And yes, the Khazar theory has been debunked, and it was a theory created by jews who supposedly know everything about their people from the moment they left the levant.

LMFAO!!!
Holy shit!!

The hilarity ensues!

Please, go on.

 

[Rod1]

LMFAO!!!
Holy shit!!

The hilarity ensues!

Please, go on.

So hilarious you cant even produce a shred of evidence on the contrary.

Im not the one that claimed that mtDNA was only 40% european.

 

[JohnnyTowers]

So hilarious you cant even produce a shred of evidence on the contrary.

Im not the one that claimed that mtDNA was only 40% european.

To quote you

Believe what you want

I'm not going to hold your hand. The information is available. Look it up. You continue to look stupid and it makes me laugh.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Derp.

I think it's accepted facts these days that the Vikings were the first to cross the Atlantic over to America. Pretty good feat for dirt eating cave dwellers.

Also, the Viking age. The Vikings had something right? And it wasn't numbers.

You should read up a little bit more on the subject if you are actually interessted.

The cave dwelling thing comes from writing. Vikings had that too, but not paper (see rune stones). Those who wrote the history back then were pretty much Christian monks who considerd any foreign entity as barbarians.

History in general is pretty skewed here. The british monks were just going on and on about how they were punished by God with Vikings for not living the way they should. It was like one or two monks from Ireland who were more factual and described the actual events.

Meh, the Vikings island hopped a couple of hundred miles and got to the northernmost part of America. Sailing close to the equator (like the Mediterraneans and the Polynesians did) is much more impressive

The cave-dwelling part was hyperbole, of course. My main point was that northern Europe was decidedly under-developed for the majority of human history. Despite having very impressive civilizations close to it for thousands of years.

I'm not claiming genetic inferiority either. I'm just saying that history wasn't over in 1,500 BC when the Egyptians were the most advanced in the world. It wasn't over in 1,000 AD when the Muslims were, and it's not over now, when Europeans have been ruling the world for 500 years.

A look at history suggests the most obvious: we're all more or less genetically equal when it comes to intelligence. Development and industrialization vary by era and tell very little.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Serious question: how many of you have met more than three Jews in your life?

Well, I grew up as a classical musician, got into competitive chess, and worked for a while in finance. So to be really stereotypical, I've met a bunch. What's your point?

 

[Rod1]

To quote you

Believe what you want

I'm not going to hold your hand. The information is available. Look it up. You continue to look stupid and it makes me laugh.

I already looked it up, you rely on oral and written tradition, i rely on academics, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Meh, the Vikings island hopped a couple of hundred miles and got to the northernmost part of America. Sailing close to the equator (like the Mediterraneans and the Polynesians did) is much more impressive

The cave-dwelling part was hyperbole, of course. My main point was that northern Europe was decidedly under-developed for the majority of human history. Despite having very impressive civilizations close to it for thousands of years.

I'm not claiming genetic inferiority either. I'm just saying that history wasn't over in 1,500 BC when the Egyptians were the most advanced in the world. It wasn't over in 1,000 AD when the Muslims were, and it's not over now, when Europeans have been ruling the world for 500 years.

A look at history suggests the most obvious: we're all more or less genetically equal when it comes to intelligence. Development and industrialization vary by era and tell very little.

Was there ever a sub-Saharan African civilization that was on the cutting edge of humanity, at least since humans ventured out of that region? That and Australian aborigines seem like the only exceptions I can think of (though it's really hard to know exactly how advanced North American native civilizations were prior to the introduction of European disease)?

 

[Awesomesauce]

To TS. In short yes it is very indicative of Jewish cultural norm. There is no single group throughout history that has consistently displayed such an extreme sense of ethnocentrism. Its really displayed at virtually every level of Jewish society. From economics, where there is the price for other Jews and the price for everyone else as extreme as any other ethnic group. It is also displayed in an extreme defense of their genetic legacy and racial purity.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Meh, the Vikings island hopped a couple of hundred miles and got to the northernmost part of America. Sailing close to the equator (like the Mediterraneans and the Polynesians did) is much more impressive

Completely backwards. Sailing the Northern Atlantic is FAR more impressive for the rougher seas and the colder weather. The Anu sailed all over the warm water world 4 thousand years ago.

The cave-dwelling part was hyperbole, of course. My main point was that northern Europe was decidedly under-developed for the majority of human history. Despite having very impressive civilizations close to it for thousands of years.

I'm not sure what your talking about here. Northern Europe was always relatively sparsely settled. But primitive or under-developed isn't a very accurate characterization.

I'm not claiming genetic inferiority either. I'm just saying that history wasn't over in 1,500 BC when the Egyptians were the most advanced in the world. It wasn't over in 1,000 AD when the Muslims were, and it's not over now, when Europeans have been ruling the world for 500 years.

The Egyptians weren't the most advanced civilization in the world in 1500 BC, the Chinese were. The Muslims (which really isn't even remotely a monolithic social entity so they are odd to include in this manner) were never the most advanced in the world, even the Baghdad centered groups your probably thinking about. That was a fantasy concocted in order to defend Islam in the west from all the legitimate criticisms of Islams many problems when considered from the point of western values.

A look at history suggests the most obvious: we're all more or less genetically equal when it comes to intelligence. Development and industrialization vary by era and tell very little.

This is quite frankly a stupid statement. History suggests there is a very wide range of intelligence and more specifically of subsets of intellectual capacity.

 

[Rod1]

Completely backwards. Sailing the Northern Atlantic is FAR more impressive for the rougher seas and the colder weather. The Anu sailed all over the warm water world 4 thousand years ago.

Not really, the polynesians are by far the most impressive travelers for what they achieved, go and read the travels of Magellan.

I'm not sure what your talking about here. Northern Europe was always relatively sparsely settled. But primitive or under-developed isn't a very accurate characterization.

Agreed. Celts were far more advanced than people give them credit for. And while germanic tribes were more undeveloped, they were not what you would call backwards.

This is quite frankly a stupid statement. History suggests there is a very wide range of intelligence and more specifically of subsets of intellectual capacity.

No, history suggests that stability and wealth give rise to a class of thinkers.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Not really, the polynesians are by far the most impressive travelers for what they achieved, go and read the travels of Magellan.

The Anu sailed from Europe to Japan on what where essentially large rafts, there isn't a corner of the world that hadn't been touched by their genetic legacy by the time Egypt rose to prominence. The same can't be said for the Polynesians who were certainly impressive in this regard. But I think its a minor thing to disagree on this point.

Agreed. Celts were far more advanced than people give them credit for. And while germanic tribes were more undeveloped, they were not what you would call backwards.

No, history suggests that stability and wealth give rise to a class of thinkers.

No it doesn't. Different cultures are prone to different expressions of extreme wealth. Egypt for example was certainly wealthy but was never considered a highly intellectual population. Same with most of the South American empires which were both massive and wealthy. Africa, the middle east, India...all of these places have very little history of advanced societies which would reflect advanced intelligences.

However I don't think any of that is fair since a society can lack the trappings of intellectualism and still have a fundamentally intellectual people. Art and culture, are for some reason, the standards by which a cultures intellectual value is determined but Art and culture are largely ancillary to true intellectual capacity.

 

[Quipling]

The Anu sailed from Europe to Japan on what where essentially large rafts, there isn't a corner of the world that hadn't been touched by their genetic legacy by the time Egypt rose to prominence. The same can't be said for the Polynesians who were certainly impressive in this regard. But I think its a minor thing to disagree on this point.

No it doesn't. Different cultures are prone to different expressions of extreme wealth. Egypt for example was certainly wealthy but was never considered a highly intellectual population. Same with most of the South American empires which were both massive and wealthy. Africa, the middle east, India...all of these places have very little history of advanced societies which would reflect advanced intelligences.

However I don't think any of that is fair since a society can lack the trappings of intellectualism and still have a fundamentally intellectual people. Art and culture, are for some reason, the standards by which a cultures intellectual value is determined but Art and culture are largely ancillary to true intellectual capacity.

Egypt had Alexandria, which was the intellectual capital of half the world until it was razed. Incans made massive advances in astronomy and mathematics. You're confusing things you don't know about with things that didn't exist.

 

[Rod1]

The Anu sailed from Europe to Japan on what where essentially large rafts, there isn't a corner of the world that hadn't been touched by their genetic legacy by the time Egypt rose to prominence. The same can't be said for the Polynesians who were certainly impressive in this regard. But I think its a minor thing to disagree on this point

No they didnt.

No it doesn't. Different cultures are prone to different expressions of extreme wealth. Egypt for example was certainly wealthy but was never considered a highly intellectual population. Same with most of the South American empires which were both massive and wealthy. Africa, the middle east, India...all of these places have very little history of advanced societies which would reflect advanced intelligences.

Sorry but you are speaking out of complete ignorance to say such things.

However I don't think any of that is fair since a society can lack the trappings of intellectualism and still have a fundamentally intellectual people. Art and culture, are for some reason, the standards by which a cultures intellectual value is determined but Art and culture are largely ancillary to true intellectual capacity.

The main problem of older civilizations was legacy, we didnt had the internet back then or the press, tons of works were lost to the ages.

Thats why people think the ancient Greeks were the only advanced europeans, because they had extensive writing and their work was preserved by other cultures like the Romans, the Arabs, the Byzantines, without them, all of greek history would had been erased from this world.

For example the Spanish burned all mayan books they could find, so all we know about them is limited.

 

[Awesomesauce]

No they didnt.

Yes they did. The Anu have the most wide ranging genetic legacy by far on earth. From Hokkaido in northern Japan (they were the native population when the Japanese arrived) to being a significant part of the genetic ancestry of the Inuit. They went everywhere.

Sorry but you are speaking out of complete ignorance to say such things.

No I'm not. Egyptian intellectual history is poor at best. Architectural accomplishments which are by far the most heavily lauded portion of there actual legacy are a farce. The Pyramids are literally the easiest structures on earth to design from an actual mathematical and mechanical structure point of view. Their language was archaic, simplistic, and inefficient compared to almost all of its contemporaries. Its sea going vessels were poorly designed and constructed. It was an empire built on trade, not its own intellectual accomplishments.

The main problem of older civilizations was legacy, we didnt had the internet back then or the press, tons of works were lost to the ages.

I agree, I have no doubt tremendous works were lost throughout history. But we can only go by what we know. Starting from a presumption that all societies are equally capable in all areas, or that the societies themselves would naturally reflect this ideal is irrational.

Thats why people think the ancient Greeks were the only advanced europeans, because they had extensive writing and their work was preserved by other cultures like the Romans, the Arabs, the Byzantines, without them, all of greek history would had been erased from this world.

For example the Spanish burned all mayan books they could find, so all we know about them is limited.

Most of the works of the great societies we know about were preserved by other societies who would usually expand upon them and claim them for their own. that seems to have been the historical norm. The Mayans had an intellectual legacy that is difficult to gauge because they had already begun to collapse before the arrival of westerners. But the Spanish were mostly interested in gold and slaves in south America.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Egypt had Alexandria, which was the intellectual capital of half the world until it was razed. Incans made massive advances in astronomy and mathematics. You're confusing things you don't know about with things that didn't exist.

Sigh, and your guilty of extrapolating common knowledge of the area and attributing them to a particular society. Alexandria was an accomplishment of the Greeks not the Egyptians. Further to that, it wasn't even an impressive accomplishment. Its largely a mythical creation of early historians who did attribute it to the Egyptians.

The Incans were downright primitive by the standards of the surrounding tribes so I don't even know why you would bring them up.

Great examples though of people attributing foreign accomplishments to a nation in order to feed into the notion that every nation is essentially the same.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Was there ever a sub-Saharan African civilization that was on the cutting edge of humanity, at least since humans ventured out of that region? That and Australian aborigines seem like the only exceptions I can think of (though it's really hard to know exactly how advanced North American native civilizations were prior to the introduction of European disease)?

Guns, Germs and Steel, bro.

That book is an absolute treasure and should be a must-read for everyone basically everywhere.

It explains how the Eurasian continent has produced the most advanced societies thanks to a series of geographical accidents. Pretty much, there have been more food/crop production (and has nothing to do with the humans living there) in those areas and much less in sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas.

Australia, being so isolated from everything, has had basically no indigenous crops and as a consequence had the most primitive people anywhere.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Guns, Germs and Steel, bro.

That book is an absolute treasure and should be a must-read for everyone basically everywhere.

It explains how the Eurasian continent has produced the most advanced societies thanks to a series of geographical accidents. Pretty much, there have been more food/crop production (and has nothing to do with the humans living there) in those areas and much less in sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas.

Australia, being so isolated from everything, has had basically no indigenous crops and as a consequence had the most primitive people anywhere.

No it HYPOTHESIZED that the Eurasian continents advanced societies were a result of specific secondary factors. The do think its a good book but it leaves out far more factors then it includes. Still a good read. For example, the stupid Australia example you noted. Australia had no domesticated crops because the indigenous people didn't domestic them, there is simply no reason to believe that the plants they did eat couldn't be domesticated so that particular extrapolation is irrational.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Completely backwards. Sailing the Northern Atlantic is FAR more impressive for the rougher seas and the colder weather. The Anu sailed all over the warm water world 4 thousand years ago.

Lol.

You do know the North Atlantic doesn't mean the North Pole, right?

And this is what Newfoundland and Greenland look like in the summer:

Not exactly brutal. Plus, the distances are much shorter the closer you get to the poles.

I'm not sure what your talking about here. Northern Europe was always relatively sparsely settled. But primitive or under-developed isn't a very accurate characterization.

By northern Europe I mean from about central Germany northwards. And yeah, they were sparsely populated because they couldn't create great civilizations like the type that existed just a few hundred miles to the south of them.

The Egyptians weren't the most advanced civilization in the world in 1500 BC, the Chinese were. The Muslims (which really isn't even remotely a monolithic social entity so they are odd to include in this manner) were never the most advanced in the world, even the Baghdad centered groups your probably thinking about. That was a fantasy concocted in order to defend Islam in the west from all the legitimate criticisms of Islams many problems when considered from the point of western values.

Interesting that you're so nit-picky about me using the term "Muslims" but don't say anything when I said "Europeans." Another group that is at least as non-monolithic as the Muslims.

But no, Baghdad wasn't the only thing I was thinking about. The North Africans that invaded Portugal and Spain were very advanced and had little to do with Baghdad.

This is quite frankly a stupid statement. History suggests there is a very wide range of intelligence and more specifically of subsets of intellectual capacity.

There is a wide range of intelligence among individuals, but not among groups.

This is why the title of "most advanced society" has differed so widely throughout human history.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

No it HYPOTHESIZED that the Eurasian continents advanced societies were a result of specific secondary factors. The do think its a good book but it leaves out far more factors then it includes. Still a good read. For example, the stupid Australia example you noted. Australia had no domesticated crops because the indigenous people didn't domestic them, there is simply no reason to believe that the plants they did eat couldn't be domesticated so that particular extrapolation is irrational.

Of course it's hypothesized. We can't run a controlled experiment on another Earth to know for sure. The argument is by far the best and most logical I've ever heard though.

And the indigenous Australians had far fewer crops TO domesticate, while Eurasia had tons, and even the Americas had more. Plus, its isolation made it hard to transport domesticated crops from other places.

You're really good at speaking with great authority even when you don't know shit. Anyone else ever told you that?

 

[Rod1]

Yes they did. The Anu have the most wide ranging genetic legacy by far on earth. From Hokkaido in northern Japan (they were the native population when the Japanese arrived) to being a significant part of the genetic ancestry of the Inuit. They went everywhere.

There is no evidence they originated in europe or evidence they had any extensive seafaring.

No I'm not. Egyptian intellectual history is poor at best. Architectural accomplishments which are by far the most heavily lauded portion of there actual legacy are a farce. The Pyramids are literally the easiest structures on earth to design from an actual mathematical and mechanical structure point of view. Their language was archaic, simplistic, and inefficient compared to almost all of its contemporaries. Its sea going vessels were poorly designed and constructed. It was an empire built on trade, not its own intellectual accomplishments.

I dont know much about the Egyptians, but you are pointing out a lot other civilizations with extensive literature, astronomy and mathematics.

I agree, I have no doubt tremendous works were lost throughout history. But we can only go by what we know. Starting from a presumption that all societies are equally capable in all areas, or that the societies themselves would naturally reflect this ideal is irrational.

By "what we know" the Germans were drunk barbarians and the celts were unwashed barbarians, there is more to history than reading ancient books.

Most of the works of the great societies we know about were preserved by other societies who would usually expand upon them and claim them for their own. that seems to have been the historical norm. The Mayans had an intellectual legacy that is difficult to gauge because they had already begun to collapse before the arrival of westerners. But the Spanish were mostly interested in gold and slaves in south America.

They were lost because the catholic church had a policy of burning every mesoamerican book they could find, so the remaining books can be counted with 1 hand and other things we learned written on buildings, we do know they had an extensive literature and advanced knowledge of math and astronomy.

And these people largely invented it by themselves since they were cut off from other civilizations unlike old world civilizations.